Histopathological grading of breast ductal carcinoma In Situ: validation of a web-based survey through intra-observer reproducibility analysis

BackgroundHistopathological grading diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast may be very difficult even for experts, and it is important for therapeutic decisions. The challenge may be due to the inaccurate and/or subjective application of the diagnosis criteria. The aim of this study was to investigate the intra-observer agreement between a traditional method and a developed web-based questionnaire for scoring breast DCIS.MethodsA cross-sectional study was carried out to evaluate the diagnostic agreement of an electronic questionnaire and its point scoring system with the subjective reading of digital images for 3 different DCIS grading systems: Holland, Van Nuys and modified Black nuclear grade system. Three pathologists analyzed the same set of digitized images from 43 DCIS cases using two different web-based programs. In the first phase, they accessed a website with a newly created questionnaire and scoring system developed to allow the determination of the histological grade of the cases. After at least 6 months, the pathologists read again the same images, but without the help of the questionnaire, indicating subjectively the diagnoses. The intra-observer agreement analysis was employed to validate this innovative web-based survey.ResultsOverall, diagnostic reproducibility was similar for all histologic grading classification systems, with kappa values of 0.57 ± 0.10, 0.67 ± 0.09 and 0.67 ± 0.09 for Holland, Van Nuys classification and modified Black nuclear grade system respectively. Only two 2-step diagnostic disagreements were found, one for Holland and another for Van Nuys. Both cases were superestimated by the web-based survey.ConclusionThe diagnostic agreement between the web-based questionnaire and a traditional method, both using digital images, is moderate to good for Holland, Van Nuys and modified Black nuclear grade system. The use of a scoring point system does not appear to pose a major risk of presenting large (2-step) diagnostic disagreements. These findings indicate that the use of this point scoring system in this web-based survey to grade objectively DCIS lesions is a useful diagnostic tool.

[1]  H. Gobbi,et al.  Variação interobservador no diagnóstico histopatológico do carcinoma ductal in situ da mama , 2005 .

[2]  F A Allaert,et al.  Telepathology diagnosis by means of digital still images: an international validation study. , 1996, Human pathology.

[3]  M. J. van de Vijver Biological variables and prognosis of DCIS. , 2005, Breast.

[4]  I. Ellis,et al.  Prediction of local recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using five histological classifications: a comparative study with long follow-up. , 1998, Human pathology.

[5]  H Kerl,et al.  Concordance between telepathologic diagnosis and conventional histopathologic diagnosis: a multiobserver store-and-forward study on 20 skin specimens. , 2002, Archives of dermatology.

[6]  C. D. Amarante,et al.  A pulverização pré-colheita com ácido giberélico (GA3) e aminoetoxivinilglicina (AVG) retarda a maturação e reduz as perdas de frutos na cultura do pessegueiro , 2005 .

[7]  A. Tosteson,et al.  Pathologists' agreement with experts and reproducibility of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ classification schemes. , 2000, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[8]  R. Weinstein,et al.  Telepathology: a ten-year progress report. , 1997, Human pathology.

[9]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[10]  I Iu IUDIN,et al.  [Tumors of the mammary gland]. , 1955, Meditsinskaia sestra.

[11]  M. J. van de Vijver,et al.  Ductal carcinoma in situ: a proposal for a new classification. , 1994, Seminars in diagnostic pathology.

[12]  M. Lagios,et al.  Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: reproducibility of histological subtype analysis. , 1997, Human pathology.

[13]  R S Weinstein,et al.  Telepathology. Long-distance diagnosis. , 1989, American journal of clinical pathology.

[14]  J. Epstein,et al.  Static image analysis of skin specimens: the application of telepathology to frozen section evaluation. , 1997, Human pathology.

[15]  M. Vijver,et al.  Biological variables and prognosis of DCIS. , 2005 .

[16]  Seong K. Mun,et al.  Teleradiology/Telepathology requirements and implementation , 2005, Journal of Medical Systems.

[17]  E T BELL,et al.  The Diseases of the Breast , 1925, Nature.

[18]  Jonathan I. Epstein,et al.  Telepathology diagnosis of prostate needle biopsies , 1997 .

[19]  E. Berg,et al.  World Health Organization Classification of Tumours , 2002 .

[20]  M. Lagios,et al.  Mammographically detected duct carcinoma in situ. Frequency of local recurrence following tylectomy and prognostic effect of nuclear grade on local recurrence , 1989, Cancer.

[21]  E. Resetkova,et al.  Reproducibility of three classification systems of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using a web-based survey. , 2010, Pathology, research and practice.

[22]  K Kayser,et al.  Telepathology in Europe. Its practical use. , 1995, Archives d'anatomie et de cytologie pathologiques.

[23]  M. Silverstein,et al.  A prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast , 1996, Cancer.

[24]  S J Schnitt,et al.  Interobserver Reproducibility in the Diagnosis of Ductal Proliferative Breast Lesions Using Standardized Criteria , 1992, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[25]  Klaus Kayser Telepathology in Europe. , 2000 .

[26]  R S Weinstein,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of an international static-imaging telepathology consultation service. , 1997, Human pathology.

[27]  M. Black,et al.  Prognosis in breast cancer utilizing histologic characteristics of the primary tumor , 1975, Cancer.

[28]  S. Pinder Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS): pathological features, differential diagnosis, prognostic factors and specimen evaluation , 2010, Modern Pathology.

[29]  J. Rosai,et al.  Transcontinental consults in surgical pathology via the Internet. , 1997, Human pathology.

[30]  H. Svanholm,et al.  Reproducibility of histomorphologic diagnoses with special reference to the kappa statistic , 1989, APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica.

[31]  B. Delahunt,et al.  Reproducibility of new classification schemes for the pathology of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. , 1998, Journal of clinical pathology.

[32]  R. Gelber,et al.  Meeting highlights: international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2005. , 2005, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[33]  R. J. Rosser Consensus conference on the classification of ductal carcinoma in Situ , 1998, Cancer.

[34]  Peter Devilee,et al.  Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs , 2003 .

[35]  A. Sabichi,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of the Lagios nuclear grading system for ductal carcinoma in situ. , 1999, Human pathology.

[36]  R. Mansel,et al.  A critical appraisal of six modern classifications of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast (DCIS): correlation with grade of associated invasive carcinoma , 1996, Histopathology.

[37]  C. Redmond,et al.  Histologic grading of breast cancer. , 1980, Pathology annual.

[38]  M. Black,et al.  Survival in breast cancer cases in relation to the structure of the primary tumor and regional lymph nodes. , 1955, Surgery, gynecology & obstetrics.

[39]  Kristine A. Erps,et al.  Overview of telepathology, virtual microscopy, and whole slide imaging: prospects for the future. , 2009, Human pathology.

[40]  R. Walker,et al.  World Health Organization Classification of Tumours. Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs , 2005 .

[41]  N. Dallimore,et al.  Consistency in the observation of features used to classify duct carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast , 2000, Journal of clinical pathology.

[42]  A. Gad,et al.  Consistency achieved by 23 European pathologists in categorizing ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using five classifications. European Commission Working Group on Breast Screening Pathology. , 1998, Human pathology.

[43]  P. Sismondi,et al.  Pathological classification of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast correlates with surgical treatment and may be predicted by mammography. , 2007, Breast.